This study is provided by ICPSR. ICPSR provides leadership and training in data access, curation, and methods of analysis for a diverse and expanding social science research community.
Global Views 2004: American Public Opinion and Foreign Policy (ICPSR 4137)
Principal Investigator(s): Chicago Council on Foreign Relations
This study is part of a quadrennial series designed to investigate the opinions and attitudes of the general public and a select group of opinion leaders on matters related to foreign policy, and to define the parameters of public opinion within which decision-makers must operate. Part 1 consists of data acquired from interviews of leaders with foreign policy power, specialization, and expertise. These include Congressional members or their senior staff, university administrators and academics who teach in the area of international relations, journalists and editorial staff who handle international news, administration officials and other senior staff in various agencies and offices dealing with foreign policy, religious leaders, senior business executives from FORTUNE 1,000 corporations, labor presidents of the largest labor unions, presidents of major private foreign policy organizations, and presidents of major special interest groups relevant to foreign policy. For Part 2, the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (CCFR) conducted its opinion survey of the American general public through the Internet. In particular, this study covers the global United States position, international norms and the use of force, multilateralism and international institutions, international norms and economic relations, and policy attitudes and perceptions of United States leaders and the public. Regarding the global United States position, respondents were asked to give their opinions on threats to the vital interests that most Americans consider critical, the fundamental foreign policy goals that they want to pursue, how much they are willing to spend on foreign policy-related items, whether they favor the United States having military bases overseas in general and their support for stationing troops in various specified countries, their views on the Middle East, how active the United States should be in world affairs, their willingness to take action against terrorism, and their support for diplomatic and other nonmilitary actions to solve conflicts. On the topic of international norms and the use of force, respondents gave their opinions on adhering to traditional norms and empowering the United Nations, preventive action against a state seeking weapons of mass destruction, using force against a state supporting terrorists, the use of nuclear weapons, the use of torture, using force against a state conduction genocide, using force to restore a democratic government, and defending a country that has been attacked. Concerning multilateralism and international institutions, respondents were asked their level of support for collective decision-making through international institutions and for empowering the United Nations, their attitudes toward other major international organizations, their support for international agreements, their desire to seek consensus among nations, and their opinions on the idea of spreading democracy. On the subject of international norms and economic relations, respondents were asked about pursuing free trade with certain conditions, globalization and trade in principle, their support for the trading system and institutions, their concerns about inequities, and their opinions on mitigating the effects of trade, achieving equity in trade, trade as a strategic tool, responsibility for development aid, regional trade agreements, and migration. For the sake of comparison, Parts 1 and 2 include many of the same questions asked of both groups. Background information on respondents includes religion, age, income, education, gender, marital status, and employment status. Part 3 is a special telephone survey of the general public designed to be directly comparable to the telephone survey of 2002.
These data are available only to users at ICPSR member institutions. Because you are not logged in, we cannot verify that you will be able to download these data.
Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. GLOBAL VIEWS 2004: AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION AND FOREIGN POLICY. ICPSR version. Menlo Park, CA: Knowledge Networks, Inc. [producer], 2004. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2005. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04137.v1
Persistent URL: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04137.v1
Scope of Study
Subject Terms: Arab Israeli conflict, defense spending, economic aid, European Union, foreign aid, foreign policy, global warming, government subsidies, immigration policy, International Monetary Fund, international relations, Iraq War, military bases, military intervention, NAFTA, national security, NATO, nuclear weapons, terrorism, trade policy, United Nations, World Bank, World Court, World Health Organization, World Trade Organization
Geographic Coverage: United States
Date of Collection:
Universe: Part 1: Leaders in the United States, including members of Congress, business leaders, journalists, labor leaders, academic leaders, religious leaders, and leaders of major private foreign policy organizations. Parts 2, 3: Adult population of the United States.
Data Types: survey data
Data Collection Notes:
The data contain weight variables that should be used for analysis.
Sample: For Part 1, members of the House of Representatives and Senate were selected from the CONGRESSIONAL YELLOW BOOK. If the House or Senate member was not available, the interview was conducted with a senior staffer responsible for foreign affairs. The FEDERAL YELLOW BOOK was used to interview assistant secretaries and other senior level administrative staff. The FORTUNE 1000 list was used to select names of vice presidents in charge of international affairs in top corporations. NEWS MEDIA YELLOW BOOK was used to select names of television and radio news directors, network newscasters, and newspaper editors and columnists. The CAPITAL SOURCE was used to select names of presidents of the largest labor unions. United States NEWS AND WORLD REPORT 2003 list of the top 50 doctoral research institutions in the United States was used to select names of university presidents and faculty who teach in the field of foreign affairs at universities. Names of religious leaders representing faiths proportionate to the number of Americans who worship each faith were selected from the YEARBOOK OF AMERICAN AND CANADIAN CHURCHES 2004. The CAPITAL SOURCE was used to select names of presidents of large special interest groups relevant to foreign policy as well as to select names of presidents of major private foreign policy organizations. For Part 2, the Internet surveys were conducted by Knowledge Networks. They utilized list-assisted Random Digit Dialing (RDD) sampling techniques on the sample frame consisting of the entire United States telephone population. Telephone numbers were selected with equal probability for each number. The sample generation system excluded confirmed disconnected and nonresidential telephone numbers. Next, the sample was screened to exclude numbers that were not in the WebTV Internet Service Provider network. Telephone numbers for which a valid postal address was recovered were sent an advance mailing informing them that they had been selected to participate in the Knowledge Networks Panel. To conduct the survey, a sample was drawn at random from active panel members using an implicitly stratified systematic sample design. Information regarding the sampling process for Part 3 was not made available.
Part 1: telephone interviews, Part 2: online surveys, Part 3: telephone interviews
Original ICPSR Release: 2005-02-18
- 2006-03-30 File QU4137.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.
- 2006-03-30 File CB4137.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.
- Citations exports are provided above.
Export Study-level metadata (does not include variable-level metadata)
If you're looking for collection-level metadata rather than an individual metadata record, please visit our Metadata Records page.